Search results

The new geopolitical context being created by the Ukraine–Russia war highlights the need for structured approaches to planning and implementing unhooking strategies and developing associated supply chain reconfigurations.

The authors have interviewed six supply chain executives to begin the investigation of the key supply chain risks and disruptions caused by the Ukraine–Russia war.

Initial corporate responses to the Ukraine–Russia conflict were significant, perhaps unprecedented. However, as institutional, corporate and consumer sentiment influence reconfiguration responses, the authors have identified three supply chain pathways that underpin unhooking actions.

The authors selected respondents from each different type of supply chain interaction with the conflict zone (inbound, outbound and within), covering both components/intermediate products and finished goods. Therefore the sample size was small and designed to fit in with the spirit of the pathway initiative.

The authors reinforce the key role of procurement and supply chain management in not just supply but also in downstream markets that can accelerate decoupling and mitigate the associated supply chain disruptions.

The authors observe that supply chains are increasingly being weaponized, as external institutional and consumer influences necessitate companies to unhook from conflict zones, countries, or regimes. They are becoming increasingly intertwined with foreign policy.

The novelty of the contribution to the associated discourse is the perspective that after decades of increasing globalization and geographic dispersion of supply chains, the unhooking effort is not limited to a firm and its internal operations but involves multiple stakeholders. For instance, the full extent of the complex linkages of supply chains, networks and relationships that touch conflict zone geographies must be considered, particularly those that are incompatible with the firm's values and aims, including those of their stakeholders.

Drawing on information processing theory, the linkage between buffering and bridging and the ability on the part of procurement to resolve demand–supply imbalances is investigated, as well as contexts in which these strategies may be particularly useful or detrimental. Buffering may be achieved through demand change or redundancy, while bridging may be achieved by the means of collaboration or monitoring.

This study employs a hierarchical regression analysis of a survey of 150 Finnish and Swedish procurement and sales and operations planning professionals, each responding from the perspective of their own area of supply responsibility.

Both the demand change and redundancy varieties of buffering are associated with procurement's ability to resolve demand–supply imbalances without delivery disruptions, but not with cost-efficient resolution. Bridging is associated with the cost-efficient resolution of imbalances: while collaboration offers benefits, monitoring seems to make things worse. Dynamism diminishes, while the co-management of procurement in S&OP improves procurement's ability to resolve demand–supply imbalances. The most potent strategy for tackling problematic contexts appears to be buffering via demand change.

The results highlight the importance of procurement in the S&OP process and suggest tactical measures that can be taken to resolve and reduce the effects of supply and demand imbalances.

The results contribute to the procurement and S&OP literature by increasing knowledge regarding the role and integration of procurement to the crucial process of balancing demand and supply operations.